Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:54:17.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arguments and concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Hein Nieuwhof
Hein Nieuwhof
Affiliation:
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 253 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and Θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In Rescher, N. (ed.) The logic of decision and action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 81–95.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M. & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 14.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. & Vikner, S. (1990). Obligatory adjuncts and the structure of events. To appear in Reuland, E. & Abrahams, W. (eds.) Knowledge and language: lexical and conceptual structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1988). Explaining and constraining the English middle. In Tenny, C. (ed.) Studies in generative approaches to aspect. (Lexicon Project Working Papers 24.) Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT. 41–57.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 547–593.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McConnel-Ginet, S. (1982) Adverbs and logical form: a linguistically realistic theory. Language 58. 144–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 157–189.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1990). Experiencer predicates and universal alignment principles. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Pustejowsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41. 47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. G. (1987). The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). Argument structure and morphology. Linguistic Review 1. 81–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, A. (1988). Unaccusativity in Dutch: an integrated approach (Report CSLI–88–123). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. (1992a). External arguments. Ms., University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. (1992b). X′-syntax- X′-semantics, on the interpretation of functional and lexical heads. Utrecht: OTS Dissertation Series.Google Scholar